Damage to GZ

October 16, 2011

Do any of you have issues with cachers damaging the cache area around GZ?

I ask, because we have a cache that we have to check on often now, because the areas been damaged twice, pretty badly, since we put the cache there. I'm talking an outdoor lamp & a sign getting torn off a wall.

I've done two maintenance logs asking them not to do it...

So, if this happens elsewhere, what do you do? Do you move the cache?

I mean, I know it's something they probably haven't seen before, but they can email us for a hint. We'd even be willing to give them our number, no problem. I don't understand why they do it.

2.3k · October 16, 2011

I've visited more than one cache where ground zero was damaged (some more severe than others). My suggestion is that if the area the cache is in is sensitive then it might be better to not have a cache there in general. Or make the cache placement very obvious and not an evil hide with a hint basically saying where it is so people are not tempted to rip things a part etc.

But if there is property damage I would probably remove the cache from the area if it was me. You can't control other people just yourself and there will always be overzealous cachers who will do whatever they want to do to groundzero to find a cache.

11.6k · October 16, 2011

I'm talking an outdoor lamp & a sign getting torn off a wall.

I've done two maintenance logs asking them not to do it...

Can you change the cache name to "Please don't rip the lamp and sign off the wall"?

3.6k · October 16, 2011

Move it. You cant control the cachers. Sad but true. We got someone here with high number and they do damage at GZ. <_<

2k · October 16, 2011

sometimes the damage is not due to cachers....but if you put a really high level difficulty cache next to say, a high # of sprinklers and do not say its not in the sprinklers...folks will look there.

Sometimes the CO needs to help do damage control to prevent folks looking where they shouldn't, or perhaps the cache just shouldn't be there.

October 16, 2011

It's killing me. It should be a relatively easy find. No, it's not the usual film canister, but it's still kind of obvious. Snake biting the nose obvious. *sigh* <_< we thought they'd really like it. Oh well.

11.6k · October 16, 2011

sometimes the damage is not due to cachers....but if you put a really high level difficulty cache next to say, a high # of sprinklers and do not say its not in the sprinklers...folks will look there.

It appears that some people aren't reading the cache page (the CO said they have some of that additional info there already). If they don't have a paperless GPSr, they might not know of any specific places to not touch. Looks like that won't help much anyway. Who needs to be told to not break stuff?

October 16, 2011

I've done two maintenance logs asking them not to do it...

I try not to read the logs of a cache unless I get stuck. I sorta equate it to reading the hint. I'd suggest putting a note right in the description page. "you're looking for an Ammo Can thats NOT in the lamp or behind the sign..." should do the trick.

I'm thinking of a cache of a friend of mine where he had a stage of a multi hidden in a flower bed at his local library (with permission of course). He put right in there to please not trample the flowers and made it super obvious in the description where it was to avoid damage to the library's flower bed. I don't think he ever had a problem by using this approach.

2.6k · October 16, 2011

I'd move it or archive it

2k · October 16, 2011

seems the only place folks really read these days are the hint section so if one spot is really important not to look in and its a problem, short of moving the cache....put it in the hint section.

9.3k · October 16, 2011

My suggestion is that if the area the cache is in is sensitive then it might be better to not have a cache there in general.

Great advice. Some cachers take a careful approach, evaluating everything on scene before touching a thing. Others show up and commence poking, pulling and prodding everything within 50' of ground zero. As a cache owner, you have no control over which kind will show up. If the area within 50' of ground zero can't withstand repeated poking, pulling or prodding, your hide might warrant reconsideration.

1.1k · October 16, 2011

I try not to read the logs of a cache unless I get stuck. I sorta equate it to reading the hint.

We did the same thing when we started. Actually patted ourselves on the back for finding w/o reading the description. With more experience, we realized this was reckless as we often did not read critical approach and time restrictions that the CO had identified. It's the CO's responsibility to communicate these specifics, it's the finder's responsibility to read them.

To the OP, I'm curious about what was communicated to you by the property owner/manager. Do they want to hold you personally accountable?

October 16, 2011

I try not to read the logs of a cache unless I get stuck. I sorta equate it to reading the hint.

We did the same thing when we started. Actually patted ourselves on the back for finding w/o reading the description. With more experience, we realized this was reckless as we often did not read critical approach and time restrictions that the CO had identified. It's the CO's responsibility to communicate these specifics, it's the finder's responsibility to read them.

To the OP, I'm curious about what was communicated to you by the property owner/manager. Do they want to hold you personally accountable?

They don't know yet. I get the awkward honors of not only telling them, but also trying to explain that not all cachers are like this. What evidence can I show them to the contrary? :blink:

1.1k · October 16, 2011

They don't know yet. I get the awkward honors of not only telling them, but also trying to explain that not all cachers are like this. What evidence can I show them to the contrary?

Awkward, necessary and I'm glad that this is your plan.

Maybe you can write your thoughts of regret in a forum post and we can start a trail of user name signatures which you then print to show the landowner that we collectively regret the incident.

2.3k · October 17, 2011

I try not to read the logs of a cache unless I get stuck. I sorta equate it to reading the hint.

We did the same thing when we started. Actually patted ourselves on the back for finding w/o reading the description. With more experience, we realized this was reckless as we often did not read critical approach and time restrictions that the CO had identified. It's the CO's responsibility to communicate these specifics, it's the finder's responsibility to read them.

To the OP, I'm curious about what was communicated to you by the property owner/manager. Do they want to hold you personally accountable?

They don't know yet. I get the awkward honors of not only telling them, but also trying to explain that not all cachers are like this. What evidence can I show them to the contrary?

I'll repeat it again. If ground zero cannot handle searching by heavy handed cachers there probably shouldn't be a cache there in the first place.

You will only go forth to damage your relationship with the property owners by stating that we're not all like that because there are always a couple of us that are.

October 17, 2011

Why is my point of listing the precautions in the cache description not valid? Just tell people up front not to destroy whatever is there that might get destroyed and the problem is solved.

Mx logs are nice, except not everybody reads the logs, and even if everyone did, eventually your warning will get scrolled off the front page and be even more worthless. Just put the warning where everybody has to read to find the cache and the problem is solved. No?

6.7k · October 17, 2011

I try not to read the logs of a cache unless I get stuck. I sorta equate it to reading the hint.

We did the same thing when we started. Actually patted ourselves on the back for finding w/o reading the description. With more experience, we realized this was reckless as we often did not read critical approach and time restrictions that the CO had identified. It's the CO's responsibility to communicate these specifics, it's the finder's responsibility to read them.

To the OP, I'm curious about what was communicated to you by the property owner/manager. Do they want to hold you personally accountable?

They don't know yet. I get the awkward honors of not only telling them, but also trying to explain that not all cachers are like this. What evidence can I show them to the contrary?

The best thing you can do is fix the damage done. Unfortunately it is probably best if you remove and archive the cache.

October 17, 2011

I try not to read the logs of a cache unless I get stuck. I sorta equate it to reading the hint.

We did the same thing when we started. Actually patted ourselves on the back for finding w/o reading the description. With more experience, we realized this was reckless as we often did not read critical approach and time restrictions that the CO had identified. It's the CO's responsibility to communicate these specifics, it's the finder's responsibility to read them.

To the OP, I'm curious about what was communicated to you by the property owner/manager. Do they want to hold you personally accountable?

They don't know yet. I get the awkward honors of not only telling them, but also trying to explain that not all cachers are like this. What evidence can I show them to the contrary?

I'll repeat it again. If ground zero cannot handle searching by heavy handed cachers there probably shouldn't be a cache there in the first place.

You will only go forth to damage your relationship with the property owners by stating that we're not all like that because there are always a couple of us that are.

...this cache wasn't put in a sensitive area. There really was no reason to rip a metal, tacked in sign off a brick wall. There was no reason to completely dismantle a otherwise sturdy outdoor lamp. Especially when they could email for a hint. Or ask a previous finder. (There was one.) I could see maybe accidentally falling into a bush, or trampling it. Or accidentally breaking a hinge on an electrical box if it was near one. But this was a little too far. This would be the equivalent of ripping an entire electrical box off the building, or yanking the bush out of the ground.

6.7k · October 17, 2011

Why is my point of listing the precautions in the cache description not valid? Just tell people up front not to destroy whatever is there that might get destroyed and the problem is solved.

Mx logs are nice, except not everybody reads the logs, and even if everyone did, eventually your warning will get scrolled off the front page and be even more worthless. Just put the warning where everybody has to read to find the cache and the problem is solved. No?

It should not be necessary to say it at all. But even if you do the reality is that some will not read the description and others won't care. As a group cachers are generally caring, careful people when it comes to others property. Unfortunately all it takes is a few numbskulls to cause trouble.

1.8k · October 17, 2011

Good description, good warnings, good co-ords. AND a meaningful hint go a long way in minimizing our footprint in an area.

Unfortunately there are folks who ...

1.1k · October 17, 2011

I try not to read the logs of a cache unless I get stuck. I sorta equate it to reading the hint.

We did the same thing when we started. Actually patted ourselves on the back for finding w/o reading the description. With more experience, we realized this was reckless as we often did not read critical approach and time restrictions that the CO had identified. It's the CO's responsibility to communicate these specifics, it's the finder's responsibility to read them.

GeotaggedBloger,

Sorry for the above post. You were commenting on reading logs and my brain read descriptions.

October 17, 2011

We're going to go to Lowe's & just fix it ourselves. & put down a better hint. & probably archive it as it will probably happen again. & we will fix it again if it does. But for the record; It's ridiculous. You either do what's right or you don't. If you don't, you don't belong in the game.

6.7k · October 17, 2011

Yes, it's ridiculous. But it's a fact of life. In any large group there are at least a few knuckleheads.

2.3k · October 17, 2011

I've seen demolished and I mean demolished landscaping timbers at one cache from over zealous people looking for it. A tore apart electrical box (locks cut and all) complete with live wires. We won't even mentioned what I've seen with lamp post covers and fire hydrants. Tons of trampled landscaping (the peonies really didn't need to be walked on). I've seen steps that have been damaged and walls as well with people poking and searching in them.

There are people out there who just don't care. Who get overzealous. Unless the cache is right there slapping you in the face there is a chance that things will get destroyed in the search. Smaller and better hid the cache the more likely this will happen as there are are obviously more spots to put it. It's just how people are. And all it takes is a couple people to do an incredible amount of damage looking for something. You'll never week those couple people out.

October 17, 2011

We're going to go to Lowe's & just fix it ourselves. & put down a better hint. & probably archive it as it will probably happen again. & we will fix it again if it does. But for the record; It's ridiculous. You either do what's right or you don't. If you don't, you don't belong in the game.

Seriously, put it in the description. At least give it a try. Mx logs are not read. Cachers, by and large, are good people. I have to believe that. If you tell them it's not in the sign they will leave the sign alone. That is a truth I choose to believe no matter what.

October 17, 2011

It's a hard lesson to learn, every time I have to learn it. It's. A constant truth that one bad apple ruins the bunch, but I have to relearn it every time. I will give it another shot. I wasn't ignoring you,geotagbloger. I was taking everything read into consideration. Please excuse typos, on the phone now, after drinks. Ha :anibad:

2.4k · October 17, 2011

Block letters at the beginning of the cache description, give it a month, and if damage is STILL being done, consider archiving. However, could it be muggles having seen cachers searching that are doing the damage?

October 17, 2011

Block letters at the beginning of the cache description, give it a month, and if damage is STILL being done, consider archiving. However, could it be muggles having seen cachers searching that are doing the damage?

Wouldn't muggles, not knowing what they are looking for, have a more open mind about what they ate picking up, & therefore muggled it by now? -edited out what the actual cache is-

Edited October 17, 2011 by RhinoInAToga

October 17, 2011

Double post

Edited October 17, 2011 by RhinoInAToga

October 17, 2011

I see caching as a fairly green hobby. Regardless if it is cachers being careless or muggles being curious, the results are the same. If the CZ has been effected by the cache, then it should be removed. It's the CO responsibility to protect the area in which they place the cache. If that cannot be done, then the cache needs to be archived.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Russ!

1.9k · October 17, 2011

Do any of you have issues with cachers damaging the cache area around GZ?

I ask, because we have a cache that we have to check on often now, because the areas been damaged twice, pretty badly, since we put the cache there. I'm talking an outdoor lamp & a sign getting torn off a wall.

I've done two maintenance logs asking them not to do it...

So, if this happens elsewhere, what do you do? Do you move the cache?

I mean, I know it's something they probably haven't seen before, but they can email us for a hint. We'd even be willing to give them our number, no problem. I don't understand why they do it.

Never underestimate the power of denying someone a little yellow graphic!

7.9k · October 17, 2011

Especially when they could email for a hint.

Are you available 24/7/365 to provide that hint within 1 minute of the eMail hint request?

Personally, I find a 'hint' like that a slap in the face, and tantamount to saying 'Go home now, and think about why you couldn't find this one'.

Not everyone caches with a smartphone.

Accidents happen, especially as time goes on and it becomes clear to cachers they others have been trying to look behind the sign.

11.6k · October 17, 2011

Especially when they could email for a hint.

Are you available 24/7/365 to provide that hint within 1 minute of the eMail hint request?

Personally, I find a 'hint' like that a slap in the face, and tantamount to saying 'Go home now, and think about why you couldn't find this one'.

I have files prepared with photos, arrows and insets, for folks that just can't find it. I just imagine what it would take for someone to show me where the container is (when I can't find it, trust me, I really can't, and no vague hint is gonna do the trick.) And I'm not gonna break a light fixture apart, so if that's where it is, I need to know how to get to it.

But the profile messaging system is intermittent at best. Send a message from there, and it can and does evaporate, more often than people know. I've only found evidence that one or two people believed me when I say that (where they actually placed important communication directly into a cache page or TB page or logs).

October 17, 2011

I've seen the damage from cachers just like you talk about. I don't understand how people can just rip things apart and not fix them before they leave. I like to call these people "locust". I would move the cache or just archive it if I couldn't find a spot that wouldn't be torn up. Good luck.

October 17, 2011

I have seen a lot of this damage first hand. One of the things we have to realize is this... Five years ago caching was a little secret, and most of the people doing it were pretty active outdoor folk that often subscribed to the "leave no trail" philosophy of outdoorsmanship. But you know what we've done? We've created a fun incentive for non-outdoor-enthusiasts to go out and enjoy the outdoors. We've hidden containers to lure our couch-potato bretheren out into the wild, and they have indeed come. The mainstream evolution of caching means that most of the people looking for most caches will no longer be "tread lightly" folks but rather, city-slickers. This means we need to re-think our attitudes about hides, and how the hider bears a responsibility for considering the wear and tear on the GZ.And has been said, the higher the difficulty, the more your rating is encouraging others to really dig into the GZ to find it.

October 17, 2011

I agree....with that said. Placing caches in the real outdoors, in woods, near creeks, on mountains requiring hiking will usually keep city slickers out. If they have to step out of their urban 4X4s and get their new Nike’s dirty, good chance they will not search for it. However, LPC, park hides, etc are perfect for those who want to be outdoors without all the hassle of things like like bugs, weepy plants, dirt, and lack of espresso machines.

7.5k · October 17, 2011

I have seen a lot of this damage first hand. One of the things we have to realize is this... Five years ago caching was a little secret, and most of the people doing it were pretty active outdoor folk that often subscribed to the "leave no trail" philosophy of outdoorsmanship. But you know what we've done? We've created a fun incentive for non-outdoor-enthusiasts to go out and enjoy the outdoors. We've hidden containers to lure our couch-potato bretheren out into the wild, and they have indeed come. The mainstream evolution of caching means that most of the people looking for most caches will no longer be "tread lightly" folks but rather, city-slickers. This means we need to re-think our attitudes about hides, and how the hider bears a responsibility for considering the wear and tear on the GZ.And has been said, the higher the difficulty, the more your rating is encouraging others to really dig into the GZ to find it.

Add the availability of apps that make it even easier for "city slickers" to cache especially in urban areas (cell phones don't work as well in the woods). So I agree, keeping that in mind a cache owner needs to provide all the information up front to prevent damage (if possible) or plant where heavy-handedness won't be a problem.

38.2k · October 18, 2011

The damage I've seen, as unfortunate as it is, usually occurs with caches near roads that are attractive to numbers caches. I hunted a cache in a parking lot last year where every single electrical fitting in the lot was bent as if someone tried to pry it open. The cache was in the woods at the edge of the lot. I have no doubt it cachers doing it.

Hide caches that aren't appealing to numbers hounds and you'll be a lot less likely to have the problem

Damage to GZ

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation